Drunkard

It would be nice. Then they could start teaching real sex ed instead of abstinence only and the number of abortions, STD's, and unwanted pregnancies could drop as well. Then we could teach kids the earth is spherical and not flat, that vaccines don't cause autism, and that evolution is real. Maybe one day, if President Reagan Worshipper allows it.

It's a common misperception which is why I posted what I did. I heard the same crap about heroin in DARE and took it to heart but saw it as nonsense as I got older because so many of the other things they said were nonsense, like the evil drug dealer who passed out free samples on the playground to get everybody hooked. I never met these mythical drug dealers. Where the hell are my free samples?! Ha ha!

It's definitely an addictive substance (up there with nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine) but the whole try it once and you're hooked nonsense is just that (nonsense). Bill Maher had a guest on his show some months back that talked about how flawed the majority of addiction studies were with rats because they were basically in empty glass or metal cages and given the choice of plain water or water laced with heroin. In a scenario like that of course the rat is way more likely to opt for the heroin. When this other guy's group replicated the same study in a more stimulating environment (foliage, exercise wheel, other rats to fornicate with and whatever else) the rats they studied had much lower rates of addiction. That's why when Grandma A breaks a hip and get's put on morphine for 2 months or so she doesn't end up addicted but Grandma B does. The addiction occurs not because of the drug itself but the drug in conjunction with other facets of the addicts life, whether it's depression, PTSD, addictive personality disorder, or something else. Heroin is not a drug that most people will use once and resort to blowing people in the alley just to get a fix though.

I think that's up to each voter to decide. I think people like Trump and Clinton morph as they see fit depending on their audience but I'd still rather see Trump get the nomination than a guy like Cruz who may have always stuck to his Conservative guns but I disagree on almost every issue.

Great post. We definitely disagree here. We need federal oversight on certain things to create a bare minimum of standards because problems that other states create can spill over into other states. You can't allow Wyoming to just dump waste into the Colorado river because the people in Colorado, Utah, California, and Arizona depend on that water. We've already seen certain states like Kansas try to make a mockery of the Educational system by basically going with the premise that science is hard, let's just say God did it. Not to mention the way Red States do everything they can to make abortions nearly impossible, ignoring Roe V Wade. There needs to be minimum standards set across all states for certain things. Otherwise you have things like institutional racism, discrimination based on other protected classes (sexual orientation, etc.) and horrible environmental standards because some states care more about the profits of businesses than the health and safety of their citizens.

We already have the largest and most capable military on earth and we're still outspending the next 10 highest spending countries combined on a yearly basis, even though most of the people on the rest of the list are our allies. How much is enough? Do we need to spend more than the next 20 countries combined? The next 30? The whole world combined? War has changed as well. It is shifting much more towards guerrilla warfare where large Armies are way too expensive and less effective because the enemy hides amongst innocent civilians rather than taking on their opposition head on. When we got Bin Laden it was due to Intelligence gathering and sending in a small group of elite fighters, not by sending in entire battalions and camping them out in the desert for 18 months. If we really want to be prepared for what's ahead we should focus on smaller elite forces (Navy Seals, Marine Recon teams, Delta Force and Intelligence Agencies like the FBI and CIA instead of worrying about building more tanks and obsolete planes that the Pentagon didn't even ask for. That might hurt the next quarter profits for Haliburton though or it may lead to some layoffs in a factory in Ohio though, so it won't happen. I find it extremely hypocritical that the party of belt tightening always has a blank check for the military but cry poor for literally every other type of expenditure.

You're anti-socialist? I guess you don't like public schools, the US military, police and fire departments, public parks, libraries, the post office, social security, medicare, highways, bridges, and a host of other socialist programs.

Your thinking falls in line with the classic Republican excuses for keeping the status quo, but it isn't borne out by the data. The economy is generally stimulated by rising the minimum wage, just compare GDP growth against the times when minimum wages have been passed by Congress. Yes it leads to higher prices in many instances but that inflation generally falls far short of the rates of increase for wages and helps out the poor because of their increased purchasing power. If raising minimum wage by $1 causes a Big Mac to go up by 25 cents the poorest still benefits. Secondly, of course it's not illegal for businesses to raise prices, this is a red herring argument though because there's nothing to stop them from doubling the prices now except consumers taking their money elsewhere and that would still be the case with a higher minimum wage. Next, a raise in the minimum wage does cause other wages to raise as well. It's simple economics. Let's say a cop or a fireman makes 15 dollars an hour and minimum wage is raised to 15 dollars an hour. In theory the cop gets no raise but supply and demand of police labor has shown that being a police office is a difficult and dangerous job that warrants a higher than minimum wage salary. After all, the policeman who doesn't get a raise can always get a job at Jiffy Lube changing oil for 15 dollars an hour with a set schedule, way less stress, and no job hazards. This is just an example, you can switch the professions if you want and say a fire fighter can go stock shelves, a roofer can work in a coffee house, and a nurse can go be a clerk at Walgreens. If those businesses want to keep their skilled labor they'll raise their wages to comparable levels above the new minimum wage close to levels that they were in relation to the old minimum wage. Lastly, socialism helps out a ton of people and most of the countries that have it prefer it to other systems. These countries typically enjoy lower levels of poverty and crime as well.

Not sure but he'll probably be playing in Rochester when he does.

You're definitely not the only one who thinks that and it's usually the biggest excuse not to do it by the Republican party but historical data indicates that raising the minimum wage is good for the economy overall and for small businesses. Yes it leads to price increases but everyone living on low wages sees their disposable income go up and that segment of the population has proven to put all of that money back into the economy. Costs go up but generally revenues and profits do as well. It eventually leads to pay raises for everyone since the people who currently work for slightly above minimum wage (the shrinking middle class) ends up receiving raises as well. Imagine people who make peanuts not having to only buy cheap imported crap because it's the only thing they can afford. I think it helps small businesses the most. Raising wages turns bad jobs into decent jobs and turns decent jobs into good jobs. If a job pays enough money to cover your basic necessities and keeps you from getting assistance from the government then I'd call it a decent job by definition (mine anyway). If it allows you to support family I'd call it a good job. The job doesn't change at all but the value placed on it (and all minimum wage jobs) by society through our government allows those people to become self sufficient, which should be what we want as a society. To increase the number of economically self sufficient citizens.

If the dignity of achievement is the goal then this is all the more reason to raise the minimum wage to a point where people who work 40 hours a week through one full time job or two part time jobs can provide for their families without government assistance. Instead of rewarding businesses with tax breaks for creating crappy paying jobs we should require them to pay a wage that doesn't require to the government to subsidize those low wages with food stamps, HUD, and other services.

You raise some fair points and while I can agree that basing the amount of assistance on the number of children in the home can encourage abuse and dependence on the system that blame can't be placed solely at the feet of liberals when it's the other side of the aisle that does everything they can to stop things like proper sex education (not just abstinence only education), the distribution of birth control, and making abortion a nearly impossible alternative across large parts of the country. You've also brought up education and improving job skills as a solution to dependency many times as well and I'm completely in favor of funding for things like this but it will still leave millions of people falling through the cracks. Creating a real living minimum wage would move many more people off government assistance. Sure someone stocking shelves shouldn't have expected to feed a family off that wage but when someone working in a maching shops gets laid off because that job gets shipped to Mexico, stocking shelves may be the best alternative in his area. That guy may not be able to afford to take a year off to get his HVAC license, just as some single mother who gets laid off may not have the time, resources, or abilities to learn to be a tig welder because they happen to be in demand in her area. Even with that the bigger fact still remains that the demand for good paying jobs greatly exceeds the supply in this country so all the educational and trade opportunities in the world would just lead to a higher skilled unemployment force as well as an even larger force of under employed.

Excellent post Deluca. Great examples of the cognitive dissonance that goes on within the Conservative mindset. Socialism is extremely popular and there are tons of examples including public schools, police and fire departments, the post office, libraries, roads, bridges, the military, and a host of others. They want big government off their back except when it comes to deciding who can get married, birth control, and allowing the government to spy on our personal lives. Then there's the love the fetus, hate the baby mindset where they have the desire to force every woman who becomes pregnant to have the child while cutting welfare and public services that women who decide to have kids they can't afford otherwise without assistance.

I definitely agree. I've talked to more Marines than I can count who despised W. Despite that my district is still overwhelmingly Republican though and I'm sure it has nothing to do with their platform of endless spending on the military. Not sure how supposedly being for smaller more efficient government fits in with massive military spending but avoiding hypocrisy hasn't been part of the GOP platform in my lifetime so I'm not surprised either.

It's not very good but Louis CK is one of the creators so I'm hoping it improves. Right now the best part of the show in that Zack Galifinakis's Mom is played by Louie Anderson.

I want the car that folds up into the briefcase like the Jetsons, along with the job where I get paid to show up just to push a button.

I should have known it was all about the beer. Very insightful, sir.

Exactly. Everyone knows hockey players are too busy sexually assaulting people to be bothered with silly bar fights. They prefer their fisticuffs on the ice anyway.

Your 2016 Buffalo Bills: 17th time is the charm.

I'm guessing it's all part of the master plan. Since the team plays better on the road the Sabres brass wants to fill the arena with opposing fans so it will feel like a road game and the team will win more. I believe the end goal is to make the team believe we'll have 82 road games next season so the playoffs are a certainty.

I like the cut of your jib, sir, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. Excellent post. This is a great article and it really highlights the differences between Sanders and Clinton. Hillary isn't a true Democrat, she's actually a lot closer to what George W Bush proclaimed to be: a Compassionate Conservative. I'm rooting for Bernie but I'm afraid the socialism word will destroy him in the southern primaries, but with some luck, hopefully he'll do well enough to hold strong and win many of the union states. We'll see.

If we want to help the workers shouldn't we just support them directly instead of supporting the businesses they work for and hoping it trickles down to them? The problem with supporting these job creators is that there's nothing that will make them pay their employees more. You can eliminate all of the red tape and regulations and 9 times out of 10 they will use their new found profits to open another store which will just add more crappy jobs rather than reinvesting in their existing employees. Businesses used to worry about all of their stakeholders (including their employees) and now they only worry about short term profits to report to their stockholders. Social safety nets like welfare, food stamps, and energy subsidies are (in theory) only supposed to be there for the people who truly need them until they are able to get on their own two feet and support themselves and their families. With the business climate the way it currently is, even people who are working 40 hours per week make so little money that they qualify for public assistance permanently. Any raises they get hardly even keep up with inflation let alone lead to a path of self sufficiency. Then these same business get massive tax cuts and are supposed to be hailed and worshipped as the all powerful job creators when the vast majority of the jobs they create cause even more strain on the system. Maybe they should just set the corporate tax rates based on the ratio of the highest paid employee (CEO) vs the lowest paid worker. Something like this: Top earner vs bottom earner ratios and tax rates: 100x = 10% 300x = 30% 500x = 50% Exactly. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Some of them would have to find other work but private insurance would still exist. Many people on Medicare currently have Medicare Supplement policies that cover the cost of copays, deductibles, and the Medicare donut hole. I imagine the insurance companies would compete for that market.

Yes, let's all shed another tear for the small business owner even though ObamaCare only comes into play when you have 50 or more employees. So what's your solution? Let's just scrap Obama Care so businesses don't have to offer health insurance. Then when these uninsured people get sick or hurt they can go to the ER for a much bigger bill that will ruin their credit and they won't be able to pay it anyway so they can pass the cost along through higher costs for the rest of us who currently have insurance. Or are you arguing for a single payer system akin to essentially Medicare for all (I doubt it). No offense but I don't really hear anyone on the right coming up with any type of solution. Just ignore the problem because it isn't happening to you personally. Same story with immigration. Everyone wants to build a wall or protect the border some other way but nobody wants to go after the people causing the problem and that's the businesses who hire illegal immigrants because it's a form of cheap labor they can exploit. Instead of auditing factories and farms that pay to have illegals brought in by the busload they deport a few dozen workers on one day while another busload get shipped in to replace them.

Also, raising wages doesn't increase costs dollar for dollar as you assert and it's not regressive in nature (although a flat tax is and you seem in favor of those). That would only be the case in a business where 100% of their cost was labor and I can't think of a single business where labor would be 100% of the costs other than maybe prostitution and even in that field I would assume there are other expenses. Percentage of labor as a cost of business varies from industry to industry but most are no where near 100%. In fact when Obamacare was beginning to roll out the douchebag from Papa Johns tried to lead the clarion call about how bad it would be for his business and his customers and it turned out providing his employees with health insurance would only require him to raise the price of a pizza by 11 to 14 cents (yes cents) or 15 to 20 cents per order. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/papa-johns-obamacare-pizza_n_1752126.html